Au Pair Awarded More Than €10,700: Why “Informal” Working Arrangements Can Still Create Employment Law Obligations
A recent Workplace Relations Commission decision provides a significant reminder that describing a worker as an “au pair” does not automatically place the arrangement outside Irish employment law.
A Brazilian language student who worked as a live-in au pair for a family for approximately 18 weeks was awarded a total of more than €10,700 following complaints concerning minimum wage, holiday pay and employment terms.
According to her evidence before the WRC, an arrangement which had originally involved approximately 35½ hours of work per week quickly developed into substantially longer working hours and additional duties.
The respondents did not attend the WRC hearing and the Adjudication Officer proceeded on the basis of the complainant's uncontested evidence.
For employers, the case reinforces an important principle: the label attached to a working arrangement is less important than the reality of the relationship in practice.
How the arrangement began
The worker had initially carried out some part-time cleaning work for the family before agreeing to become their live-in childminder in December.
The agreed arrangement was that she would assist with the children before school each weekday morning, work again during the afternoons and evenings, and work on Saturdays.
The anticipated working week was approximately 35½ hours and she was to live in the family's home while receiving €1,600 per month.
However, the worker told the WRC that additional hours began from her first day and subsequently became routine.
She also gave evidence that soon after starting she was asked to sign a contract providing for 70 hours of work for the same monthly payment, which she refused to do.
Working hours and duties expanded
The Adjudication Officer described the worker's account of the following months as “harrowing”.
According to her uncontested evidence, she was regularly required to work additional hours and was repeatedly asked to work on Sundays.
Her responsibilities also expanded beyond the childcare arrangement she said had originally been agreed.
When the family subsequently moved home, she said she was instructed to undertake much of the packing associated with the move.
An employee's duties and working hours should not simply expand in practice without employers considering the contractual and statutory consequences.
The employment came to an end after 18 weeks
Following the family's move, relations deteriorated.
At the beginning of April, the worker was told to take a week away from the residence.
During that period she received a text message informing her that her employment had ended.
She later returned to collect her belongings. Payments were subsequently transferred to her, but she maintained that further sums remained outstanding and that she had expected payment in lieu of notice.
Calling someone an “au pair” does not determine their employment status
One of the most important aspects of the decision is the finding that the complainant met the criteria necessary to be regarded as an employee.
This is particularly important in domestic, casual and other apparently informal working arrangements.
Employment rights depend on the reality of the working relationship — not simply the title given to the worker.
Where a person personally performs work, follows defined hours, carries out duties for another person and receives payment in return, employers should not assume that describing the arrangement as casual, live-in, voluntary or as an “au pair” removes statutory obligations.
Domestic workers have employment rights too
Employment law obligations are not confined to conventional offices, shops, factories or other commercial workplaces.
People employed within a private home may also benefit from statutory employment protections.
Depending on the circumstances, employers of domestic workers need to consider matters including:
- Minimum wage requirements;
- Written terms and conditions of employment;
- Working-time limits;
- Rest breaks and rest periods;
- Annual leave and public holiday entitlements;
- Sunday working;
- Minimum notice;
- Payslips and employment records; and
- The worker's dignity and privacy within the home.
Living in the workplace does not mean an employee is permanently available for work.
Employers must keep control of working hours
The allegations in this case also provide a useful reminder about working-time compliance.
An agreement about ordinary hours should reflect what actually happens in practice.
Employers should have a reliable way of recording:
- Start and finish times;
- Additional hours worked;
- Rest breaks;
- Weekly rest;
- Sunday work; and
- Annual leave taken.
This is particularly important where an employee lives at their place of work, because the boundary between working time and personal time can otherwise become blurred.
“Live-in” should never be treated as meaning “always on duty”.
Written terms should match the actual arrangement
Another lesson concerns written contracts and changes to working arrangements.
Employers should clearly document matters such as:
- The employee's normal working hours;
- The rate and frequency of pay;
- The duties expected of the employee;
- The employee's place of work;
- Rest arrangements;
- Annual leave;
- Notice provisions; and
- Any accommodation arrangements where relevant.
If an employer later wishes to make a significant change to working hours, duties or other contractual arrangements, that should be handled properly rather than simply imposed in practice.
More than €10,700 awarded
Having concluded that the complainant was an employee, the Adjudication Officer made awards under several pieces of employment legislation.
The amounts awarded included:
- €5,655.67 under the National Minimum Wage legislation;
- €641.60 in respect of holiday pay;
- €1,917 under the Terms of Employment legislation; and
- €2,500 towards legal expenses.
The combined amount was approximately €10,714.27.
The decision demonstrates how several separate employment law obligations can arise from the same working relationship.
Ignoring a WRC hearing does not make the problem disappear
There is another important lesson for employers in this decision which has little to do with au pairs or domestic employment.
The respondents did not attend the hearing.
The Adjudication Officer stated that there was no reason not to proceed on the basis of the complainant's uncontested evidence.
Employers who receive a WRC complaint should take it seriously, prepare their evidence and engage with the adjudication process.
Failing to participate can leave important allegations unanswered and deprive an employer of the opportunity to place its own evidence and explanation before the Adjudication Officer.
What should employers take from this decision?
Employers should consider the following:
- Do not rely solely on labels such as “au pair”, “casual” or “helper”.
- Consider the reality of the working relationship.
- Provide clear written employment terms.
- Define working hours and duties properly.
- Keep accurate working-time and pay records.
- Ensure minimum wage and holiday entitlements are being met.
- Do not treat live-in workers as being permanently available.
- Document material changes to duties or working arrangements.
- Ensure statutory notice and termination obligations are considered.
- Engage promptly if a WRC complaint is received.
The wider lesson for employers
This case arose in a private home, but the lesson extends well beyond domestic employment.
Businesses sometimes use terms such as contractor, casual worker, volunteer, intern or other informal descriptions without first considering the legal reality of the relationship.
What matters is not simply what an arrangement is called, but how it operates in practice.
An informal working arrangement can still create very formal employment law obligations.
Employers who are unsure about employment status, working hours, contractual terms or an existing WRC complaint should seek advice before the issue develops further.
This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained in relation to individual circumstances.
